They Say/We Say

Bosch Fawstin's picture
Submitted by Bosch Fawstin on Fri, 2008-11-14 04:56

And until we say Islam, we will continue respecting evil in the name of good. We will continue giving the benefit of the doubt to something that's never, ever earned an ounce of it. Listen to the Ex-Muslims like Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, etc. They left the faith, but not the battle, and they say Islam. They understand it first hand, they suffered under it, and they suffer for telling the truth about it, and their first hand knowledge of all things Islam should make those who truly don't know Islam pause before mouthing off about it, for they will invariably get it wrong in the name of something other than the truth.
The beginning of the end of this war will be when we are no longer afraid to name their evil by its name, Islam. Radical Nazism, Extremist Communism, Totalitarian Fascism, we never heard these terms, because each, like Islam, was another name for evil. But unlike these evil ideologies, Islam is accepted as a religion and with that comes all kinds of blinders, and not only from those who are religious.
We are respecting evil in the name of tolerance and in the name of '1.4 billion Muslims', and in the name of lies. But it is evil that we are showing respect to by not calling it by its name. Its name is Islam and if enough of us call it out, it will be the beginning of the end of its evil, no matter if '1.4 billion' Muslims have the collective fit of all time. We will remind them that there are 5 billion non-Muslims who want to remain as we are.

- Bosch Fawstin


( categories: )

Thanks, Suma, and you make a

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Thanks, Suma, and you make a very good point, calling Islam Islam would indeed help bring decent non-Muslim Muslims out of their fog about the religion they purport to be part of. In that scenario, Islam will be getting the bad name it deserves and they will at least be embarrassed or ashamed about being part of such a thing. Either way, there are great benefits to be gained in not compromising the name of the enemy's ideology as anything other than Islam, for us and for them.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Great image, Bosch. I

Suma's picture

Great image, Bosch. I totally agree with this uncompromising take. In addition, we will be doing a favor to any decent folk who happen to be born muslim. The 1.4 billion muslims are not going to become atheist anytime soon, but calling Islam as it is, will force decent people (who happen to be muslim) to make an effort to identify and clarify what exactly they stand for.

Cool

A Facebook friend of mine

Bosch Fawstin's picture

A Facebook friend of mine set up a Blog Network link for my main blog and I wanted to recruit anyone who would be interested in joining it, thanks in advance.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

ACT! for America

Richard Wiig's picture

Aaron, the only real

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Aaron, the only real argument I see here is in using the term Islam today or at a time when the culture's more receptive to it through their own understanding of the issue. I think the way towards that understanding is to always use the unqualified Islam, backed up by a rock solid argument for those who don't know. It's definitely worth an argument, especially since it's with those who are in total agreement that in the end we're all talking about Islam as such.
And glad you like the piece, Aaron, thanks.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Bosch- I do agree with Amy's

Aaron's picture

Bosch-
I do agree with Amy's comments concerning using relevant adjectives which serve to clarify and equate rather than weaken or excuse. However, I also love the poster, think it's powerful and does address damn well the all-too-common and serious issue with explicit or implicit apologists for Islam. Awesome work.

Aaron

Objective communication of

Richard Wiig's picture

Objective communication of the truth about Islam doesn't require a qualifier.

Oops

Amy Peikoff's picture

Must have left it on some other forum.

Damn!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Where's your spirit of altruism and sharing?!

Lindsay, now we've come full circle

Amy Peikoff's picture

Because I joined this forum in order to tell you and Scott, "Hands off!" ;)

http://fawstin.blogspot.com

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Drag-and-drop?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Sounds like a transvestite strip-show. Eye

Clicking should work. Can't think why it isn't. Did you try saying "Islamofascism"?

If that Bosch is being mean to you, Amy, just say the word and I'll take him out to the woodshed for a spanking.

LOL

Amy Peikoff's picture

:D

It's as easy as saying

Bosch Fawstin's picture

It's as easy as saying Islam. Evil

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Hey, if you're mister non-emoticon

Amy Peikoff's picture

Why is it that you are getting them to work better than I am?  I click on them and nothing comes up!:?  OK, I just copied and pasted that one.  But there's got to be a better way...

 

Edit:  I figured out that drag-and-drop works! 

If

Bosch Fawstin's picture

One more volley

Amy Peikoff's picture

If I am right, that objective communication of the truth about Islam requires adding some qualifier to "Islam," then doing so does not actually help Islam (or hurt us), even though it may seem to if taken out of context.

 If you can change your mind about emoticons, and dogs, and....  ;)

What can I say to that,

Bosch Fawstin's picture

What can I say to that, Lindsay, but that it means a whole lot. Thank you.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

You make a hell of an

Bosch Fawstin's picture

You make a hell of an argument, Amy, and I'm glad you like the piece, but not saying Islam only helps Islam and hurts us, so yes, we'll have to agree to disagree until you agree with me. Smiling

P.S. I've never used emoticons, far too canned for my style, but since they've been deemed Un-Islamic, what the hell.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

BTW, I love your piece. To me, in light of my argument here, it communicates two things: (1) disapproval of those who use all that jargon for the wrong reasons, and (2) disappointment with an America who is not yet able to understand the true nature of Islam. And I should add that "Islamic Extremism" is also OUT. I am also an extremist.

Me too, and I love the piece also. In most instances of the qualifiers it's right on the money. And I get huge reassurance just from knowing there are folk like Bosch on this earth.

Bosch, we'll have to agree

Amy Peikoff's picture

Bosch, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Tailoring one's terminology to the requirements of objective communication does not mean one has to leave out some aspect of the truth.  When I am first talking to someone about selfishness, properly understood, I will likely use "rational self-interest," because selfishness is misunderstood in the culture.  Then I will make clear that selfishness *is* rational, so that the former terminology is redundant.

 Incidentally, I think the issue is the same whether the term at issue is a positive one or a negative one.  In the case of selfishness, using "rational self-interest" instead could be said to undercut selfishness by implying that there is such thing as an irrational selfishness.  In the case of Islam, using "Totalitarian Islam" instead tends to help Islam, by implying there is a non-totalitarian form.  Undercut the good or give the bad a free pass.  Both of these are required because of the corruption of the culture.  And so long as we would like to achieve our ends by convincing others of the truth -- rather than (literally) hitting them over the head with it -- we need to communicate with them in a way they can understand and educate them to the point that they are familiar with the proper terminology.

Here's an analogy in politics:  we all agree Social Security is corrupt, evil.  And yet, given how embedded it is in American society, we can't just abolish it tomorrow, we need to phase it out.  Similarly, we can't make up for the corruption of the culture by simply deciding, this instant, to use only the terminology proper for addressing those who haven't been corrupted.

One more point:  if (when?) we suffer some further disaster due to Islam and its adherents, that *alone* cannot teach people the true nature of Islam.  Only communication in concepts can do that. 

 BTW, I love your piece.  To me, in light of my argument here, it communicates two things: (1) disapproval of those who use all that jargon for the wrong reasons, and (2) disappointment with an America who is not yet able to understand the true nature of Islam.  And I should add that "Islamic Extremism" is also OUT.  I am also an extremist Smiling

Amy, your argument that

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Amy, your argument that those who use terms other than Islam to describe Islam should make it clear that it is by nature totalitarian or fascistic is a good one, and outside of Lindsay, I can’t think of others who have done so. I’d be less critical about the terms if that was the norm, and most especially if there was a unified term that the entire West got behind…..

But despite the arguments for using terms other than Islam to describe Islam, when intellectuals allow the current, culture wide ignorance of the masses to dictate their choice of terminology, especially if they themselves know that the problem is Islam as such, they're consciously choosing to not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The truth about Islam is so ugly that there’s no way to tell it other than bluntly and ruthlessly, and Always By Its Name. Moderately telling the truth because the masses aren’t ready to hear it should never be the concern of intellectuals, but of politicians. Look what waging a moderate war against Jihad has done for the enemy.

The Masses get their second hand knowledge from those with first hand knowledge, the intellectuals, and if they're not up to telling it like it is, at all times, then the truth we need to know about Islam will come to us not in the form of words, but through the sounds of death and destruction.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Here we go...

Amy Peikoff's picture

I disagree with Bosch somewhat on this terminology issue.  Based on what I know about it, I agree that Islam is evil.  And I even agree that adding extra suffixes, etc., can be seen as implying that there is some form of Islam that isn't totalitarian, fascistic, etc.  I also agree that everyone who knows the true nature of Islam should work so that we reach the day, ASAP, when general audiences also understand its nature.

 But I doubt that we are there yet.  "Rational Self-Interest" and "Laissez-faire Capitalism" are examples of redundant phrases, each of which implies that there is some other kind of the thing being discussed (e.g., capitalism).  And yet it is appropriate to use these phrases for the sake of objective communication.  True, no one ever added extra words, prefixes, or suffixes to "Naziism," but that's because the general public understood the nature of Naziism.  Many do not yet understand the nature of Islam.

 So, I do not have a problem when a speaker, in contexts of limited time, or by way of introduction, uses, e.g., "Totalitarian Islam" instead of just "Islam."  However, he should do this only as objective communication requires, not to avoid offending Muslims.  I also think the speaker who uses such terms should, whenever appropriate (as much as possible!), educate his audience about the nature of Islam.  Let those audiences know that, even though he starts by using "Totalitarian Islam," Islam is, by it's nature, totalitarian.  Etc.

Of course it would help if all these various speakers settled on one such term/phrase.  "Radical Islam" is, in my mind, the worst of these.  It conveys no content that shows Islam to be bad in any way.  After all, I'm a radical.  :)

 Rand did title her book _The Virtue of *Selfishness*_ (not "rational self-interest").  But she used that title in a context where she was able to back it up with an entire book that explained what selfishness is and why it is a virtue.  Similarly, if someone who knows better is writing a book about Islam (or perhaps a graphic novel dramatizing its nature...), he shouldn't use extra words, prefixes, suffixes, etc.

Well said, Kyrel, and there

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Well said, Kyrel, and there actually is a group that calls itself Muslims Against Sharia. I had a run in with them on a blog post of mine. You be the judge about how it went down, from the comments section of my essay Muslims vs Jihad?

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Islam as We Know It

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

My study of this subject tells me that the essence of Islam is what I call The Three Pillars: jihad (war), sharia (slavery) and shahada (martyrdom). Islamic ideology compels all Muslims to wage aggressive war against innocents, enslave those innocents, and do so even if it requires their death.

I've never heard of a group calling itself "Muslims Against Jihad" or "Muslims Against Sharia" or "Muslims Against Shahada" -- let alone all three. I don't think such an organization is possible. Liberal Islam doesn't exist, it never has, and it never will, as far as I can tell. The ideology and religion would fall apart and no longer make sense.

Still, the best hope for the world in the short term may be something of this kind. It would be a kind of anti-Islam Islam or non-Islam Islam which embraces most aspects of Western liberalism as practiced by America, Europe, and Japan. But that would almost certainly require an overwhelming amount of hypocrisy and outright ideological fraud.

Currently I'm not aware of a single prominent Muslim anywhere on earth which favors this type of reform-- let alone any popular Muslim propaganda group which agitates in this direction. So I think a civilized or humane or liberal Islamic group of any size is going to be a long time in coming.

What needs to be defeated today is historical Islam, current Islam, and Islam as the whole world knows it.

Thanks Bosch. That's like

Richard Wiig's picture

Thanks Bosch. That's like Christmas coming early Smiling

'I dreamed I killed

Bosch Fawstin's picture

'I dreamed I killed Mohammed' - Frank Warner aka Pigman.

Good posting, Sandi. It is the truth about Mohammed coming out in a big way that will be the beginning of the end of the West's tolerance about Islam, and it's a truth that is being protected by Muslims and all of their useful idiots. Mohammed is Islam and Islam is Mohammed, once the masses know about Mohammed's evil, The War on Jihad will really begin, bringing down Islam and all of its institutions, in the name of civilization's survival.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Ok, Lindsay, and kudos to

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Ok, Lindsay, and kudos to you, but I don't think I've ever heard the others I've named use the naked term Islam as you have, and most especially your textual nuke 'Death to Islam!'

'To add to truth subtracts from it.' - Isaac Stern?

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

"You Only Need to Kill One"

Sandi's picture

I think that Bill Warner's latest article is most appropriate for this thread.

"No university teaches anything about Islamic war doctrine. West Point does not teach a single course on Islamic war doctrine or history. West Point's Middle East professors are as dhimmized as Harvard's professors (which is where West Point gets their teachers). Remember that Bush went to exclusive schools and received a good education. As a result he knows nothing about political Islam, any more than any of his classmates do.

Is it impossible to kill 1.5 billion Muslims? It is a military possibility, but kafirs do not have the political will for such a task. Besides, it is not necessary to kill Muslims. You just need to kill Mohammed. In short, we need to launch an ideological war to respond to Islam's jihad doctrine.

And what would an ideological war look like? How about open debate without the usual politically correct, multicultural narrow-mindedness? How about a leader, such as a congressman, being able to speak about Islam's jihad doctrine. (Of course, few of our so-called political leaders would ever speak against a potential voter. A notable exception to this is Sue Myrick of North Carolina who has formed an Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

An ideological war would include our schools, particularly state schools, teaching about the Koran and the Sunna. History courses that would include the Tears of Jihad, the killing of 270 million kafirs. Women's studies that would include Sharia law. Religion courses that would teach the death of Christianity in Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. Military history that would include the great battles of Islam. Courses on slavery that would go beyond the standard-issue West Africa/white man on wooden ships.

An ideological war would include a media that actually used critical reasoning and connected the dots in the Islamic violence that wracks the world with 12,221 attacks since September 11th in 39 countries.

So, we don't need to kill 1.5 billion Muslims, but we do need to kill Mohammed if we are not to go the way of Christianity in Turkey, which is now 99.7% Muslim. We will either fight an ideological war or die as a kafir civilization."

Full Article

edited

Jmaurone's picture

 Yes, I edited, sorry. I reread yours and saw that you said what I was asking already. 

...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....

Yes!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Both.

Ooops. You seem to have altered your post. But yes to the first version. Islam is fascist; fascism is not necessarily Islamic.

Linz

Jmaurone's picture

 Linz, I think I get what you're saying, and wasn't referring to your usage, but to the usage of other words as in the cartoon. 

...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...

Hmmmm .......

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Joe said:

Bosch:
"Now, if those who used the prefixes and suffixes were to make it clear that Islam itself is totalitarian and fascistic and evil, that would be a bit better, but again, not using the actual name of the 'evil ideology' that we're facing reveals a fear in naming Islam..."

Rand:

"Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it." But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies..."

Could you have imagined Rand calling her book THE VIRTUE OF RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST?

Not the equivalent. I for one have no fear of using the term "Islam." It doesn't satisfy me to do so since it doesn't convey my contempt for what I am on record as calling a "stinking, stupid superstition." The term "Islamofascism" does not let Islam off any hook. It conveys that there are types of fascism other than Islam, but that Islam is fascistic. And for good measure I have made it clear every time I have written about Islam that it is "totalitarian and fascistic and evil." Remember the stink over this article in Salient?

Note that it is called "Death to Islam." The second installment was called "Death to Islamofascism." Can it really be argued that the second lets Islam off the hook because of the title?

Kyrel, thanks as always, and

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Kyrel, thanks as always, and exactly right, once the words are in place, our power will do the rest.

And thanks again, Joe, we have to remind even ourselves that words matter far more than we think they do at times.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Richard, thanks for bringing

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Richard, thanks for bringing it to my mind, here's the image, on t-shirts, posters, etc.
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Naming Names...

Jmaurone's picture

Bosch:

"Now, if those who used the prefixes and suffixes were to make it clear that Islam itself is totalitarian and fascistic and evil, that would be a bit better, but again, not using the actual name of the 'evil ideology' that we're facing reveals a fear in naming Islam..."

Rand:

"Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it." But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies..."

 Could you have imagined Rand calling her book THE VIRTUE OF RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST?

 ....NOBAMA: saveusfromobama.blogspot.com.....

Scott, when you say that 'We

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Scott, when you say that 'We all know there is only one Islam, and it is evil', the fact is that many of us don't 'know' this and don't want to know this, and terms such as the ones I've mentioned only help maintain the illusions of those who don't want to know. Now, if those who used the prefixes and suffixes were to make it clear that Islam itself is totalitarian and fascistic and evil, that would be a bit better, but again, not using the actual name of the 'evil ideology' that we're facing reveals a fear in naming Islam, no matter the defensive rationalizations that follow from even those I admire who use the avoidance terms. There is an interest, even from the best of us, to protect Islam from full judgement, which only helps Islam. In not using the term Islam we are flanking it with protections it doesn't deserve and allowing it to continue its evil under cover, with our help. We must stop doing this now, before Muslims have a chance to show us the true meaning of Islam in a nuclear age.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Have you considered putting

Richard Wiig's picture

Have you considered putting this on a t-shirt, Bosch? I think this should be spread are and wide. You've got one customer right here.

Current and Historical Islam is the Enemy

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Leave it to the artist Bosch Fawstin to cut directly to the chase and see clearly what others see only thru the fog! Good job, Bosch!

For the record, I've been calling it The War on Islam for many years now. I wrote a really long, harsh essay with this title on the 5th anniversary of 9/11. I made it even longer and harsher on the 6th anniversary -- and kept the title. I agree with practically every word Bosch said. In my view, once we in the quasi-civilized, quasi-rational West start referring to it as The War on Islam -- the battle will already be half-won!

Great work, but poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.

atlascott's picture

The general public already thinks there is a "good" Islam and a "bad" Islam.

We all know that there is only one Islam, and it is evil.

I can see the virtue of associating the word "totaliarian" and "facist" to Islam to try to combat the multiculturalist plague which results in the notion that Islam is just as good as any other set of political ideas, except Western values, which are inferior.

On the other hand, you make a good point. Appending a prefix or suffix may dilute to central message, which is that Islam is dangerous garbage, period.

I tend to agree with attaching modifiers to Islam so that the very word becomes associated with its modifier, in a perhaps vain hope that more people will begin to identify it for what it is.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Yes, kaiwai, and the way we

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Yes, kaiwai, and the way we really begin to destroy Islam is by giving it not one iota of respect and calling it the evil it is. Most Muslims will have a temper tantrum for the ages, as if that matters when it comes to our civilization's well being. In the end, who gives a damn what they think, because they can't think, their minds have been warped by Islam to the point that they believe it's actually a good thing and everything else outside of it is evil. They truly do not know better, but we do, and our avoiding calling Islam Islam only gives them ammunition to continue killing us in the name of Islam, while we call it something else. We're not at the point where we're comfortable talking about these things, but these things are coming. No war fades away, they all grow into a white heat of destruction for one side. If we begin to call this evil by its name, we can do what must be done. This is an endgame religion/political system we're facing and we had better get serious, first with our terminology, with our ideas, and then with the actions that naturally flow from that. And with Obama in the white house, the enemy's primed to hurt us more than they ever have. If we say the truth, we will act on it.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Until we call Islam Islam,

kaiwai's picture

Until we call Islam Islam, it will be off the hook it has always deserved to be on. Islam is totalitarian, but calling it 'Totalitarian Islam' tacitly suggests that there's a non-totalitarian Islam. Those who don't know Islam will read your 'Islamofascism' and Yaron's 'Totalitarian Islam' as deviant forms of Islam, which only helps Islam and hurts us. They all call it Islam, we must all call it Islam, no matter our desire to create a western distinction that doesn't exist. When people refer to an interpretation of Islam that's the problem, I always follow that by recognizing it as Mohammed's interpretation.

You're right - the moment one attaches a prefix to it - the question that is asked, "so the 'normal' Islam isn't like that?" its a politically correct attempt to 'why don't we all try to get along'. Call a spade a spade - Islam is evil to the core and must be destroyed as an ideology.

The ideology of Islam has turned 1.6Billion people into prisoners to an evil ideology equivalent to that of Nazism and Communism.  Destroying Islam will not only preserve our freedoms but free well over a billion from being slaves to an evil ideology.

Until we call Islam Islam,

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Until we call Islam Islam, it will be off the hook it has always deserved to be on. Islam is totalitarian, but calling it 'Totalitarian Islam' tacitly suggests that there's a non-totalitarian Islam. Those who don't know Islam will read your 'Islamofascism' and Yaron's 'Totalitarian Islam' as deviant forms of Islam, which only helps Islam and hurts us. They all call it Islam, we must all call it Islam, no matter our desire to create a western distinction that doesn't exist. When people refer to an interpretation of Islam as the problem, I reply that it *is* an interpretation of Islam, Mohammed's interpretation.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Bosch

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No one who has used terms other than Islam to describe Islam has been able to distinguish between Islam and their personal idea of Islam.

But that's the point. I don't use the term "Islamofascism" to suggest anything other than that Islam is fascistic; I'm sure it's the same with Yaron and his use of "totalitarian Islam." It's not meant to suggest there is any other kind; it's meant to draw attention to that very fact.

No one who has used terms

Bosch Fawstin's picture

No one who has used terms other than Islam to describe Islam has been able to distinguish between Islam and their personal idea of Islam. It's a matter of life or death for us to do so, no matter that we don't fully appreciate that today. Calling evil by its name is the first step to defeating it.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

All of the terms besides

Bosch Fawstin's picture

All of the terms besides Islam help Islam, in that they suggest that Islam is good, but all of these other Islam's are bad. Many Westerners have their own, personal terms for islam which makes our fight so much harder since we're not unified under one term like the Muslims are with Islam. Yaron Brook calls it Totalitarian Islam, which suggests that there is a non-Totalitarian Islam. Daniel Pipes calls it Radical Islam, which suggests that there's a non-radical Islam. John Lewis calls it Political Islam, but there's no such thing as an apolitical Islam. And then there are the truly pathetic ones like Michael Medved's IslamoNazism. Islam was here a thousand years before last centuries great evils, it's one of the great evils of mankind's history, but we can't seem to accept that or deal with Islam by its own terminology without imposing our own, all to avoid calling islam Islam. If Muslims were to ever detonate a nuke in a major Western city, the fallout would include all of these false terms and we'd finally call it Islam. What would be different about Islam if that were to happen? Nothing. It's we that would have finally accepted its evil and be ready to call it by its rightful name.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I say "Islamofascism." I also say Islamofascism *is* Islam. Am I excused? Eye

Thanks a lot, Joe.

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Thanks a lot, Joe.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Great

Jmaurone's picture

 Bosch, as great as your Pigman stuff is, this piece REALLY stands on its own as a political statement. Great job. 

...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.